Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for
thousands of years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism; standing in opposition to this
viewpoint is historical idealism.

Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction
between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between
the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the
suppression of the old society by the new.

The ruthless economic exploitation and political oppression of the peasants by the landlord class forced them into numerous
uprisings against its rule.... It was the class struggles of the peasants, the peasant uprisings and peasant wars that
constituted the real motive force of historical development in Chinese feudal society.

In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States, it is only
the reactionary ruling circles that oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary
intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people.

It is up to us to organize the people. As for the reactionaries in China, it is up to us to organize the people to overthrow
them. Everything reactionary is the same; if you do not hit it, it will not fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a
rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of itself.

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so
refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection,
an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

Chiang Kai-shek always tries to wrest every ounce of power and every ounce of gain from the people. And we? Our policy is to
give him retaliation and to fight for every inch of land. We act after his fashion. He always tries to impose war on the
people, one sword in his left hand and another in his right. We take up swords, too, following his example.... As Chiang
Kai-shek is now sharpening his swords, we must sharpen ours too.

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution. The basic reason
why all previous revolutionary struggles in China achieved so little was their failure to unite with real friends in order to
attack real enemies. A revolutionary party is the guide of the masses, and no revolution ever succeeds when the revolutionary
party leads them astray. To ensure that we will definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses
astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friends in order to attack our real enemies. To distinguish real friends
from real enemies, we must make a general analysis of the economic status of the various classes in Chinese society and of
their respective attitudes towards the revolution.

Our enemies are all those in league with imperialism - the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big Landlord
class and the reactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial
proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the vacillating middle
bourgeoisie, their right wing may become our enemy and their left wing may become our friend - but we must be constantly on our
guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks.

Whoever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary. Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and
bureaucrat-capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whomever sides with the revolutionary people in words only but acts otherwise
is a revolutionary in speech. Whoever sides with the revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is a revolutionary in the
full sense.

I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the
enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by
the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better
if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not
only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.

After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns; they are bound to struggle
desperately against us, and we must never regard these enemies lightly. If we do nor now raise and understand the problem in
this way, we shall commit the gravest mistakes.

The imperialists and domestic reactionaries will certainly not take their defeat Lying down and they will struggle to the
last ditch. After there is peace and order throughout the country, they will still engage in sabotage and create disturbances
in various ways and will try every day and every minute to stage a comeback. This is inevitable, beyond all doubt, and under no
circumstances must we relax our vigilance.

In China, although in the main socialist transformation has been completed with respect to the system of ownership, and
although the large-scale and turbulent class struggles of the masses characteristic of the previous revolutionary periods have
in the main come to an end, there are still remnants of the overthrown landlord and comprador classes, there is still a
bourgeoisie, and the remolding of the petty bourgeoisie has only just started. The class struggle is by no means over. The
class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the
class struggle in the ideological held between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at
times will even become very acute. The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook, and so does
the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is still not really settled.

It will take a long period to decide the issue in the ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism in our country.
The reason is that the influence of the bourgeoisie and of the intellectuals who come from the old society will remain in our
country for a long time to come, and so will their class ideology. If this is not sufficiently understood, or is not understood
at all, the gravest mistakes will be made and the necessity of waging the struggle in the ideological field will be
ignored.

In our country bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology, anti-Marxist ideology will continue to exist for a long time.
Basically, the socialist system has been established in our country. We have won the basic victory in transforming the
ownership of the means of production, but we have not yet won complete victory on the political and ideological fronts. In the
ideological field, the question of who will win in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has not been really
settled yet. We still have to wage a protracted struggle against bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology. It is wrong not to
understand this and to give up ideological struggle. All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be
subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked. However, the criticism should be fully
reasoned, analytical and convincing, and not rough, bureaucratic, metaphysical or dogmatic.

Both dogmatism and revisionism run counter to Marxism. Marxism must certainly advance; it must develop along with the
development of practice and cannot stand still. It would become lifeless if it remained stagnant and stereotyped. However, the
basic principles of Marxism must never be violated, or otherwise mistakes will be made. It is dogmatism to approach Marxism
from a metaphysical point of view and to regard it as something rigid. It is revisionism to negate the basic principles of
Marxism and to negate its universal truth. Revisionism is one form of bourgeois ideology. The revisionists deny the differences
between socialism and capitalism, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. What
they advocate is in fact not the socialist line but the capitalist line. In present circumstances, revisionism is more
pernicious than dogmatism. One of our current important tasks on the ideological front is to unfold criticism of
revisionism.

Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The
revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip service to Marxism; they too attack "dogmatism". However, what they are
really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the
people's democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist
transformation and socialist construction. After the basic victory of the socialist revolution in our country, there are still
a number of people who vainly hope to restore the capitalist system and fight the working class on every front, including the
ideological one. Moreover, their right-hand men in this struggle are the revisionists.